For most people, buying a new roof is one of the most important and expensive maintenance decisions for their biggest investment. For many homeowners, the cheapest option is the default choice, while others choose a style they like and leave the details to a contractor.
It’s not always easy to find out who makes your roofing material. It can be even harder to find out if they recycle or work to minimize their environmental impact. But the impact of our roofing choices, both on our homes and on the environment, is too great to ignore.
We’ve researched roofing materials and manufacturers to make it easier to buy an eco-friendly roof. Our results are far from comprehensive, but as more consumers begin to demand this information, more manufacturers will begin to provide it. When they do, we’ll update our sustainable roofing results.
Materials
This article looks at the pros and cons of the most common manufactured roofing materials. We don’t include natural roofing materials in the comparison chart since they aren’t manufactured.
Asphalt Shingle
Asphalt is the most affordable roofing option. It’s so common that when people talk about roofing, they often mean asphalt shingles. About 75% of single-family homes in the U.S. have them.
Laminate shingles (also called architectural or dimensional) are fiberglass layered between asphalt and ceramic granules. They can be made to look like more expensive materials, such as tile, wood, and slate. Although slightly more expensive than basic three-tab asphalt shingles, laminate shingles perform better. Single-plane shingle roofs (also called 3-tab) are the easiest roofs to retrofit with a solar panel system. Several asphalt tile manufacturers offer solar-compatible or solar-integrated asphalt roofs.
Asphalt roofs usually last 20 to 25 years, but some newer, high-quality ones can last 40 years or more. While asphalt shingles can technically be recycled, most still end up in landfills. The shingles recycler, GAF, report that over 13 million tons of asphalt shingles are removed from U.S. roofs each year, and less than 10% are recycled. The rest go to landfills, where they can take 300 to 400 years to break down.
On the bright side, shingle-to-shingle recycling is improving, with CertainTeed’s RenuCore technology and GAF’s RoofCycle process helping to create more circular options for asphalt shingles.
Wood Shingle and Shake
Handmade wood shakes are valued for their natural appearance and are known for being expensive. However, machine-made wood shingles cost only a bit more than asphalt. Wood shingles can develop mold, split, or rot in damp climates.
Untreated wood shakes don’t have a fire safety rating, so many places with wildfire risk don’t allow them. Fire retardants can help wood shingles and shakes reach a Class B fire rating, and adding extra materials to the roof can help them meet Class A standards. Chemically treated shingles can’t be composted. Even with these issues, wood roofs can last 25 to 30 years, and with careful upkeep in mild climates, they may last up to 50 years.
Getting wood shingles or shakes from a local sawmill cuts down on greenhouse gas emissions from transport and ensures the wood species fits your region. Whether you buy locally or from a national brand, look for FSC-certified wood.
Metal
Metal roofing options include steel, aluminum, copper, and alloy strips. They come in various shapes and textures, from standing seam panels to shingles that resemble tile or slate. Metal can be more expensive than asphalt, but, except for copper, it remains among the more affordable long-term roofing options when lifecycle costs are considered. Proper installation and good insulation are required to minimize noise from rainfall and wind “chatter.” Metal is lightweight, virtually fireproof (Class A fire rating), and particularly suited to solar panel systems. Metal roofs last 40 to 70 years or more, and they are the most easily recycled roofing material, as metal is 100% recyclable at end of its useful life as roofing.
Tile
Tile roofs are common on Mission and Spanish-style homes in the western and southwestern U.S. While they’re often found in desert areas, some tiles, like Ludowici’s that meet ASTM C1167 frost-resistance standards, can be used in cold climates too. Roof tiles can be made from terracotta clay, ceramic, or concrete. Tile roofs are heavy and may need extra framing. Concrete tiles cost less than clay but offer many of the same benefits. Clay tile roofs can last 50 to 100 years or more, while concrete tiles usually last 40 to 50 years.
Slate
Slate roofs are heavy enough to require extra framing. As arguably the most expensive roofing material, they are not an option for most budgets. But they are also nearly indestructible, with a lifespan of 50 to 100 years or more. Be aware of the origin of the slate that will be used, as the sustainability and durability can vary. Because slate is so heavy, the distance slate tiles must be shipped will significantly affect not only the cost but the environmental impact of choosing this natural material.
Synthetic Roofing
Synthetic roofing can be made from materials like plastic, clay, rubber, or asphalt, and is often designed to look like natural materials such as slate or wood. Thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) single-ply roofing, usually used on flat or low-slope roofs, is still one of the top-rated cool roofing products. GenTite offers TPO for homes, and Westlake Royal Building Products’ DaVinci roofing provides composite slate and shake roofing as lighter and more affordable alternatives to natural materials.
Not many synthetic materials have been around long enough to know how they’ll perform over time. Still, some show promise, with strong performance ratings and 50-year warranties. Synthetic roofs could be a good choice for those willing to research, but we haven’t included them in our manufactured roofing comparison below.
Roofing Rating Criteria
When reviewing sustainable roofing, we consider a variety of factors, including warranties and certifications.
Longevity
The lifespan of your roof is largely determined by the material you choose. Slate roofing has the longest average lifespan, and wood or 3-tab asphalt shingles have the shortest. However, individual products can be manufactured to higher standards, so a very good asphalt roof may last as long as an average metal one. For our comparison of manufactured roofs, we started with metal roofs ranked highest, followed by tile, then asphalt. Then we modified the manufacturers’ rankings based on warranties.
Energy Efficiency
The radiative properties of roofing materials are solar reflectance and thermal emittance. Both are rated on a scale of 0 to 1, where 1 is the most reflective or emissive. The Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC) maintains the Rated Products Directory, which is now the primary standard for evaluating roof energy performance since the ENERGY STAR roofing program ended in June 2022.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, a reflective cool roof can stay more than 50°F cooler than a conventional roof under the same conditions. Cool roofs can reduce cooling energy costs by 7–15% or more, minimize temperature fluctuations inside the home, and reduce the urban heat island effect. In our comparison, we focused on manufacturers whose products are rated by the CRRC and have high solar reflectance values. Keep in mind that even top manufacturers make some products that don’t meet cool roof standards.
You can install solar panels on almost any roof, but we gave higher rankings to manufacturers that offer solar-integrated or solar-compatible roofing systems.
Recycling Practices
All of the roofing materials we considered are technically recyclable. However, in practice, many homeowners have trouble finding local recycling options — particularly for asphalt shingles. When ranking manufacturers, we considered their use of recycled materials, their recycling practices in production facilities, and their circular-economy initiatives.
Federal Tax Incentives
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025, accelerated the phase-out of the Section 25C Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit included in the Inflation Reduction Act. The original expiration was the end of 2032, but the new expiration date was December 31, 2025. Homeowners who had qualifying cool roof products installed and operational by December 31, 2025 can still claim the credit on their 2025 tax return.
Comparison Chart
Meet the Manufacturers
Malarkey
The family-founded Malarkey Roofing Products, established in Oregon in 1956 and now a member of Holcim Building Envelope, continues to lead the industry in sustainable shingle innovation. All Malarkey shingles include 3M Smog-Reducing Granules that use photocatalytic technology to convert nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) into water-soluble nitrate salts, actively reducing air pollution. Each average-sized roof has a smog-fighting effect equivalent to planting approximately two trees, according to data from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and 3M.
Malarkey’s proprietary NEX® Polymer Modified (Rubberized) Asphalt incorporates upcycled rubber from tires and post-consumer plastics into the shingle asphalt, diverting waste from landfills while improving durability. Their 2024 Sustainability Report noted cumulative totals of approximately 6.8 million upcycled rubber tires and 4.5 billion upcycled plastic bags diverted from landfills. All three Malarkey manufacturing facilities are GreenCircle Certified for both Recycled Product Content and Waste Diversion from Landfill.
Ludowici
Ludowici has been making clay tiles from locally sourced materials harvested within six miles of the plant, since 1888. They offer a 75-year warranty on standard products, with an expected lifespan of more than a century. Many of Ludowici’s 58 standard colors provide a Solar Reflective Index (SRI) greater than 39, making them an energy-efficient option without limiting design choices.
Although the standard product uses 3% post-industrial recycled materials, the Ludo360 product line uses 40% recycled material from clay scrap, shale, and waste. Ludowici’s manufacturing process generates no waste, and all products are 100% recyclable, either reused as vintage roofing or crushed for construction fill and filter applications.
Interlock Metal Roof Systems
Interlock specializes in aluminum metal roofing systems manufactured in Delta, British Columbia. Their variety of profiles — including slate, cedar shingle, shake, Mediterranean tile, and standing seam — includes solar-compatible bracket systems. The company suggests you’ll “Never Re-Roof Again,” and Interlock backs its products with a Lifetime Limited Warranty that is transferable to a second homeowner as a 50-year non-prorated warranty.
Interlock roofing panels contain up to 95% recycled aluminum and are 100% recyclable at end of life. The proprietary Alunar® Cool Roof Coating System reflects heat to reduce cooling costs by up to 25%. Interlock roofing was selected for the SPOT MODULE Project, which supports the South Pole Overland Traverse in Antarctica.
CertainTeed (Saint-Gobain)
CertainTeed, a subsidiary of Saint-Gobain (the worldwide leader in light and sustainable construction), operates more than 60 manufacturing facilities in North America. The company makes more than 300 residential roofing products, primarily asphalt but also metal roof tiles that resemble clay, slate, and shake. Warranties range from 10 years to lifetime depending on the product.
CertainTeed’s CoolStar granule technology yields CRRC-rated products. They also offer a solar-integrated roofing system. A major recent development is RenuCore™, a patented technology that pelletizes both post-industrial and post-consumer asphalt shingle waste for reuse in hot mix asphalt paving — a meaningful step toward circular economy practices for asphalt roofing. Saint-Gobain’s broader sustainability commitment includes a goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and a 49% reduction in landfill waste was recently achieved at the Shreveport, Louisiana roofing facility.
Westlake Royal Roofing
In 2021, Westlake Chemical Corporation acquired Boral North America’s building products businesses, and in January 2022, launched the unified Westlake Royal Building Products brand, bringing together the former Boral roofing lines with Royal Building Products and DaVinci Roofscapes. The former Boral brands were rebranded as follows: US Tile (premium clay), Newpoint Concrete Tile Roofing (formerly Boral Concrete), Unified Steel Stone Coated Roofing (formerly Boral Steel), and DaVinci Roofscapes (composite slate and shake). Westlake Royal also offers its own integrated roofing components line including high-performance underlayments like SwiftGuard and the Sol-R-Skin BLUE radiant barrier.
US Tile’s clay products carry a 50-year warranty and contain up to 59% recycled raw materials, and they are 100% recyclable at end of life. Westlake Royal’s clay tiles retain the Cradle to Cradle certification earned under Boral. All clay and concrete tiles carry a Class A fire rating, and select tiles include Class 3 or 4 hail impact ratings. Multiple products are CRRC-rated with cool roof–qualifying color options.
DaVinci Roofscapes composite tiles offer Class A fire, Class 4 impact, and 110 mph wind ratings with a Lifetime Limited Material Warranty, positioning them as a durable alternative to natural slate and cedar shake without the weight or maintenance.
Eagle Roofing Products
Eagle Roofing Products is the concrete tile division of family-owned Burlingame Industries. Concrete tiles do not have the life expectancy of natural clay but are still likely to outlive their 25-year warranty. They match clay’s high solar reflectance values, and when installed with a sheathing ventilation system, can reduce heat transfer into the attic by almost 50% compared to an asphalt shingle roof.
Eagle’s standard tiles contain 2.5% recycled content; their lightweight products are made from 65% recycled material. Eagle has taken environmentally-minded steps in manufacturing, including reducing electricity usage and selecting vegetable- or water-based chemicals. Concrete tiles are heavy, so proximity to manufacturing matters: Eagle’s plants are in Rialto and Stockton, California; Phoenix, Arizona; and Sumterville, Florida.
Berridge
Berridge Manufacturing Company, in business for more than 50 years, specializes in architectural sheet metal products, including roofing, selling directly to architects and contractors. Their watertightness warranty is 20 years (when installed by a Certified Applicator), and the expected lifespan of a Berridge metal roof is 40 to 70 years or more.
The company’s products contain roughly one-third recycled materials and feature advanced Kynar 500® and Hylar 5000® PVDF coatings that resist fading and chalking while reflecting solar radiation, contributing to energy savings and supporting LEED certification goals. Berridge’s 11 manufacturing facilities are concentrated in Texas and the South, though metal sheets are less carbon-intensive to ship than heavier materials like tile.
Tamko
Tamko is a family-owned business and one of the largest roofing manufacturers in America, specializing in asphalt shingle. They offer CRRC-rated products and a limited lifetime warranty on their shingles.
What’s Changed Since 2019
Since this guide was first published, several important changes have affected the world of sustainable roofing:
ENERGY STAR for roofing has been discontinued. The EPA’s ENERGY STAR certification program for roofing products officially ended in June 2022. The CRRC Rated Products Directory is now the standard for evaluating roof product reflectance and emittance. Builders, utilities, and code officials should reference CRRC ratings. The underlying reflectance thresholds (≥0.25 for steep-slope, ≥0.65 for low-slope) still serve as useful benchmarks.
Circular economy gains momentum. The asphalt shingle industry is making real progress on closing the loop. Saint-Gobain/CertainTeed launched RenuCore™, a shingle-to-paving recycling technology. GAF developed its patented RoofCycle™ process, which can use approximately 90% of collected shingle waste to manufacture new shingles, and has committed more than $100 million to scale the technology. Still, with over 13 million tons of shingle waste generated annually and less than 10% recycled, much work remains.
Cool roof science strengthened. Research published in Urban Sustainability found that city-wide adoption of cool roofs could reduce building HVAC energy consumption by 15–35% in current climates and even more dramatically under future warming scenarios, reinforcing the value of reflective roofing choices.
Editor’s Note: This article, originally published on April 8, 2019, and written by Gemma Alexander, was updated in February 2026 to include the latest manufacturer details, new sustainability information, and an updated comparison chart.
The post Sustainable Roofing Buyer’s Guide: 2026 Update appeared first on Earth911.
https://earth911.com/how-and-buy/sustainable-roofing-buyers-guide/
Last winter, we kept our house at 60 degrees and our electric bill was STILL $280. I’ve been interested in solar for a long time, but on the long list of house projects (especially when you’re restoring a 200 year old house on the historic registry) some are more pressing than others.
But with a few of those major projects wrapping up, and a daunting bill before me, I figured now was the time for a quick google search on solar panels, and let me tell you….. It can be very overwhelming.
Figuring out the rules (cough, cough, historic society), incentives or rebates if applicable, how much it would cost, how much we could save, etc. felt a little like a part-time job. But, one website made it really easy to compare things, and I am happy to be partnering with Aurora Solar to share that site with you.
Because I think you should be able to easily run the numbers on your house without a lot of hassle!
This post is sponsored by Aurora Solar, but all thoughts and opinions are my own.
If you’ve ever gotten a solar quote, there’s a good chance that Aurora Solar was involved. Aurora was founded in 2013 after its co-founders spent seven months trying to design a solar energy system using a patchwork of different tools.
Afterall, designing a solar system shouldn’t be harder than actually installing one. So they built software specifically for solar professionals. Today, more than 7,000 solar organizations use Aurora, and more than 20 million solar projects have been designed using the platform. They are also the largest solar software provider in the world. Their software is used by roughly 80% of the top 75 residential solar companies in the U.S.
All of this tech has been primarily used by professional installers to map your roof and then create a proposal, but now Aurora is offering this tech to us to help compare quotes.
So instead of having to call a bunch of different installers, I could use the Aurora Solar Marketplace to understand my solar potential, compare estimates, understand my possible savings, look into battery storage and other home electrification incentives, and map out different financing options.
1. know how much electricity the system will actually produce
Before you even get into the price, make sure you understand what you’re actually being quoted.
Two solar systems can have very different prices because they may not be the same size or produce the same amount of electricity. A cheaper system might simply have fewer panels and offset less of your electric bill.
With Aurora, you can compare solar estimates and see the system size, energy production, and how much electricity the system should offset.
You can also upload your utility bill to get a solar estimate based more closely on your actual energy usage, to make the quote accurate for you instead of a ‘generic household’.
2. understand the solar payback period
Aurora calculates things like payback period and lifetime savings, which makes it much easier to understand the long-term finances.
The solar payback period is basically how long it takes for your estimated savings to make up for what you spent on the system, and this is the number that surprised me most!
One estimate had a payback period of around 7 years, and another was closer to 11 years! Over 25 years, two of the estimates I looked at had almost a $13,000 difference in projected savings.
Of course, these are still projections as electricity rates can change (HELLO 2026) but when you’re trying to compare two options for the same house, knowing that one is projected to pay for itself four years sooner is pretty useful information.
3. look beyond the monthly payment
Depending on the installer, you may be looking at a cash purchase, solar loan, lease, or power purchase agreement.
But thankfully with Aurora you can compare the different financing options side-by-side which makes it a lot easier to see the trade-offs. One option may have a lower upfront cost, another may have a lower monthly payment, and another may give you better long-term savings.
4. find out which solar incentives actually apply to you
The minute you start Googling solar, you can find federal incentives, state incentives, utility programs, rebates, net metering, and a whole bunch of information that may or may not even apply to where you live.
And some of the articles ranking at the top of Google are several years old! (RIP to the federal incentives canceled at the end of 2025.) But, Aurora can account for solar incentives when calculating the cost and savings of a system, including state, local, and utility-specific programs.
I would still double check any incentive or tax benefit you’re planning to use before signing a contract, especially because programs and eligibility can change, but having all the relevant information in the same place makes the research process much less overwhelming.
5. research the installer, equipment, and warranties
Aurora lets you compare solar installers based on things like reviews, reputation, pricing, and financing options, which I think is just as important as the actual quote.
I’d also look closely at what equipment is included. What panels are they using? What kind of inverter? How long are the equipment warranties? Is there also a workmanship warranty from the installer? Who handles repairs if something goes wrong five or ten years from now?
And, I know I’ve said it a million times, but it’s nice to see it side-by-side without having to fill out a bunch of forms and be hounded on the phone just to get an idea of what solar may look like.
The post How to Compare Solar Quotes: What to Look For Before You Choose appeared first on Going Zero Waste.
How to Compare Solar Quotes: What to Look For Before You Choose
Green Living
Sustainability In Your Ear: XPRIZE’s David Babson on Why Climate Grand Challenges Need Buyers, Too
Buyers contracted nearly 30 million tons of durable carbon removal in 2025, more than triple the 2024 total, according to CDR.fyi data reported by Heatmap. About 90% of those purchases came from a single company, Microsoft, and suppliers delivered only about 450,000 tons during the year. That is a sliver of the six to 10 billion tons of removal a year that climate scenarios suggest the world will need by 2050. The technology to pull carbon out of the air works, but the customers needed to scale it remain scarce.
Our guest today, David Babson, is executive vice president of the Energy, Climate, and Nature domain at the XPRIZE Foundation. He calls the slow progress a market failure, because the technology is progressing faster than it is being adopted. Babson previously led MIT’s Climate Grand Challenges initiative and was a program director at the U.S. Department of Energy’s ARPA-E. His portfolio includes XPRIZE Carbon Removal, which drew 1,334 teams and whose participants have raised more than $3.3 billion. In April 2025, Mati Carbon won its $50 million grand prize for spreading crushed basalt on smallholder farms in India, where the rock locks away carbon dioxide. “If people could make money taking carbon out of the air and putting it underground, as opposed to only being able to make money taking it from underground and putting it in the air, we would be in a better place,” Babson says. Mati is weathering the slump in part because its rock dust also improves soil health and crop yields, giving farmers a reason to participate that doesn’t depend on carbon credit prices.
XPRIZE’s answer is to change what winners receive. Babson describes “mixed purses” that pair a cash award with a guaranteed buyer through an advance market commitment, a power purchase agreement, or an offtake contract. In one thought experiment, a carbon removal prize would come with a separate $1 billion fund raised from credit buyers, which qualified teams could draw on as they deliver verified tons. XPRIZE is applying the same thinking to a planned series of fusion energy prizes, pairing technical milestones with market mechanisms to build the supply chain that commercial fusion will require. The same gap between invention and adoption shows up in other XPRIZE competitions. On September 23, XPRIZE Wildfire awarded about $4.55 million from its $11 million purse, with defense contractor Anduril Industries taking first place in autonomous fire response along with a $1 million Lockheed Martin bonus. Babson expects costs to fall as fire agencies adopt the tools and as startups license individual components into cheaper platforms, though underfunded agencies will need a way to buy the first systems. He also notes that the competition left fuel management and ground-based autonomy for future prizes. Earlier this year, program director Andrea Santy told us that field testing had moved ahead of drone regulations. In biodiversity, Limelight Rainforest won $5 million for surveying 100 hectares of tropical forest in under 24 hours and identifying more than 250 species. Biodiversity still lacks a price, but Babson argues that once ecosystems can be measured, slow-walking policy becomes “a dereliction of what they should be doing.”
We also discuss the tension inside XPRIZE’s vision of “equitable abundance,” including a $101 million Healthspan prize that could add years of consumption to longer lives. Babson argues that abundant, cheap clean energy would let society move beyond efficiency as its organizing principle, powering uses such as indoor vertical farms that could return millions of acres of farmland to nature. You can follow XPRIZE’s new competitions and get involved in its prize ideation workshops at xprize.org.
- Subscribe to Sustainability In Your Ear on iTunes
- Follow Sustainability In Your Ear on Spreaker, iHeartRadio, or YouTube
Interview Transcript
Mitch Ratcliffe 00:36
Hello. Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are on this beautiful planet of ours. Welcome to Sustainability In Your Ear. This is the podcast conversation about accelerating the transition to a sustainable, carbon-neutral society, and I’m your host, Mitch Ratcliffe. Thanks for joining the conversation today.
Let’s talk about the power and the uses of grand challenge programs to kickstart low-carbon industries and respond to the changing environment. Over the past several years, we’ve talked on the show with leaders of grand challenge programs designed to accelerate progress on humanity’s most difficult challenges, from pulling carbon out of the atmosphere to fighting rapidly growing wildfire threats in cities and rural communities. Many of these competitions have been launched by XPRIZE, whose leaders have shared on the show the stories of these competitions as they launched and unfolded.
Today is a chance to take stock, to look back and think about how climate markets, technology, and politics are changing fast, and how that makes this a good moment to ask the question: Are these programs designed to accelerate progress actually delivering that progress?
Our guest today designs XPRIZE’s climate bets. David Babson is executive vice president of the Energy, Climate, and Nature domain at the XPRIZE Foundation. Before XPRIZE, he was the executive director of MIT’s Climate Grand Challenges initiative and a program director at the U.S. Energy Department’s ARPA-E energy technology research agency.
His portfolio includes the largest incentive in prize history. In 2025, Mati Carbon received a $50 million grand prize for their enhanced rock weathering solution for capturing and drawing down carbon, and XPRIZE now reports that companies participating in its programs have raised $3.3 billion. That carbon removal win arrived just as the removal market hit serious turbulence, and as XPRIZE’s wildfire competition wrapped up with its top prize still unclaimed.
So we’re going to discuss what grand challenges can really accomplish, which winners continue to build and which stall, and what the reasons are, as well as the tensions inside a portfolio that funds both climate solutions and longer human lifespans. We’ll get to the conversation right after this brief commercial break. Stay tuned.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear, and welcome, David Babson, to Sustainability In Your Ear. How are you doing today?
David Babson 03:10
I’m doing well.
Mitch Ratcliffe 03:11
I’m glad to have you here. You’ve run research portfolios at ARPA-E and MIT. What can a prize purse accomplish that a well-funded grant program can’t, or are they complementary?
David Babson 03:22
They’re absolutely complementary. The way that I think about it is that the value of these different mechanisms for promoting innovation is at different parts of the innovation supply chain, if you will. A prize is not a substitute for the very necessary investments that places like governments make into basic, applied, and advanced research. In fact, those types of investments are really valuable for establishing the innovation ecosystems and the technical capacities to eventually win prizes.
Where the prize is very valuable is somewhat downstream: translating technologies, ideas, and innovations that are coming out of academia and labs to market for scale. It challenges the innovators to imagine those technical capacities as solutions to global challenges, and then the visibility that the prize brings to those translations of technologies de-risks funding to flow to those innovators so they can imagine their uses in practice.
So I actually see them as very complementary, particularly when it comes to solutions in the energy and climate space that require rapid adoption of technologies in markets to have impact. Just having an energy solution or a climate solution is not valuable unless it can be de-risked and connected to markets to scale for impact. And that’s what the prize is actually very good at doing.
Mitch Ratcliffe 05:22
That comes through in the impact report that you all published recently. About 1,300 different organizations were catalyzed. The groups came together, apparently, because of their desire to compete in the competition.
What I’ve found in my work with public-private partnerships, in particular, is that impact investors are looking for that initial traction, and to a degree, the prize and the distribution of money within the prize group is that catalyst that says there’s a real opportunity for an impact profit, something that both does good and is profitable. How does the organization consult with the financial communities that are going to back these companies once your prize has been awarded? Is there a backroom conversation about that, for lack of a better way of putting it?
David Babson 06:10
Not an explicit backroom conversation about it, but the prize itself brings attention to the innovations that are coming out to win the competition. Oftentimes, as you’re noting, these impact investing communities exist, and they are looking for technologies to invest in to have impact.
What the prize is effective at doing is casting a wider net and surfacing the best solutions across the board, where there may have been silos in the past, or there may not have been transparency to individual investors about where to put their money. The prize is capable of elevating all of them, creating better visibility, and therefore, just by its inherent operation, creates better opportunities for investment capital to flow to the right types of teams to have greater impact more quickly.
So we don’t have explicit discussions with those types of investor communities to have them directly connected to individual prizes. But we often consult with investors and experts in industry to inform the metrics that we would want to have demonstrated, so that we know that when teams are winning our competitions, the demonstrations that they do are de-risking capital to flow to those innovators so that they can be translated to market.
Mitch Ratcliffe 07:47
We’re talking about growing industries, which of course means diversifying into a lot of specializations. Once you’ve got this kind of anchor winning team or teams, how does XPRIZE think about propagating the information that’s necessary for the rest of the industry to grow and fill in around them, in order to provide the kind of comprehensive geographic coverage and range of functions that are necessary for the industry to thrive? Is that something that you think about cultivating, like you would in agriculture?
David Babson 08:22
It is something that we think a lot about. With a few of the more recent prize competitions that we’ve run, we have also paired those competitions with a subsequent impact phase, which is designed to further build the community that has been established through the operation of the prize and connect the technologies that came out of the competition to the right types of markets and investors so that they can scale.
So that is one of the things that we’re thinking about in future competitions as well: not just running an innovation competition to surface new innovations, but how do we augment the community building that the prize provides as a way to also promote the back-end business models and industries that can scale those solutions for impact?
Mitch Ratcliffe 09:19
How would you describe the patterns you’re looking for that indicate that an organization can become that durable enterprise? What separates them from the rest? Have you got thoughts about that?
David Babson 09:29
I do have thoughts about it. In a lot of ways, the rigorous metrics that we set up when we’re designing the competition are informed by what experts believe would be the necessary demonstrations to actually generate a solution that is market viable. So a lot of it is very quantitative in terms of how we architect the competition.
But what we’ve also seen is that there are elements of winning teams that can’t always be controlled by just the scientific